Skip to comments.Proudly gay and proudly Catholic
Posted on 04/14/2009 8:51:10 AM PDT by presidio9
Two days after the 1999 Soho pub bomb, monthly Masses were launched at a Catholic convent in London, welcoming lesbian and gay Catholics, their parents and families. Unable to find a central London Catholic church, after the convent's closure, LGBT Catholics found hospitality at Soho's Anglican parish church. Increasing numbers resulted in the Masses being held twice a month. While the Diocese of Westminster might have believed that the group would fade away, it recognised that real pastoral needs were being met, converts to Catholicism were being made, and a vibrant community could offer something to the local church. In March 2007, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor invited the Soho Masses LGBT community, in contact with around 300 people overall, to transfer its services to one of Soho's Catholic parishes.
A positive grass-roots story, but the church worldwide still fails to dialogue formally with its LGBT members. Official statements reflect harsh judgements, uninformed either by increasing knowledge about human sexual diversity, or Catholic theological pluralism. The pastoral practice on the ground varies enormously. LGBT pastoral ministries operate with differing degrees of hierarchical support. The Catholic church reflects the kind of divisions seen in the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality, with some Bishops formally recognising only those groups which advocate celibacy.
Those viewing Catholicism from afar can be forgiven for assuming that the church has held its views on homosexuality for centuries. In fact, it only began to detail this teaching in a 1976 Declaration on Sexual Ethics, through the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by the present Pope. This coined an untraditional Catholic term, "intrinsic disorder" to describe homosexuality,
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
yuk. Not catholic.
I don’t think the Church is against gays per se, just as long as they don’t act on their sexual inclinations.
However, as a praticing Catholic, I find the article revolting.
Hoping to become a priest huh?
Every Catholic Church has a confessional. That's formal dialogue.
Somehow I cannot reconcile being gay with being Catholic. But having said that, I guess that is more of an individual personal decision which one must be ready willing and able to explain to the almighty when the time comes. Frankly, I would like to see more and more gay people turn to the church and spiritualism and religion for comfort. I think it would help them come to terms with their own selves and their own sexuality.
Yay, Arthur!! Direct hit!
Nor did the Church define homosexuality as an intrinsically disordered state until it had to, in the Gayest decade on record.
But the Church didn't internally change to make either of these definitions. Both proceed from the truth, and both were defined contra mundum, against a disbelieving world.
So it is when one speaks the truth. For instance: we've always known that bowing to Muslims is intrinsically disordered, but we had no need to explicitly say this until two weeks ago. The only thing that changed is that now it needs to be said!
Pride Cometh Before A Fall, dummy.
Catholic, maybe, but practicing Catholic?
He’d have plenty of company, no doubt.
> The Vatican has made it clear that its tenets on homosexuality are not 1st level in the order of Catholic teachings. As such, Catholics hear what the church’s teaching authority has to say, but neither the Vatican nor the pope is an oracle, in the presence of which Catholics cast aside human capacity, and fall to their knees in irrational submission.
If I have read and understood this correctly, it is OK to be Catholic and a Homosexual, both at the same time. True?
What the gays fail to understand is that homosexuality is simply sin. What most Christians fail to realize is that homosexuality is simply sin, no different in God’s eyes than gossip or greed or envy.
We’re all sinners - that much is agreed. The real question is, how do we react to our sin? Does it break our hearts, as it does God’s, or do we cling to it and hold it close?
There’s a word for what he advocates. Protestantism. Episcopalian to be exact.
How can you be proudly gay? Pride is usually a feeling you get when you accomplish something or reach a goal.
Serioiusly, why not "Proud Beastiality, Proud Catholic"? What's next when you bend God into a shape convenient for your sins?
I'd say that's almost true ... but in a sense that liberals would refuse to understand.
It's okay to commit adultery and still be a Catholic - that's what confession and sincere repentance are for. What's not okay is saying that God made a little boo-boo with the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" thing every time it comes up, including when Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to "go forth and sin no more", so activists are going to fix that part of the Bible for God.
As for being gay and Catholic, I see it as equivalent to being married but tempted to commit adultery and Catholic (or any other branch of Christianity). God writes the rules for our own good. Whether we choose to follow His word is a question of free will, but our choices don't determine His word. What is not okay is claiming that God was wrong, so the Bible has to be rewritten to fix God's mistakes and to make His word politically correct.
This article makes use of every equivocation, evasion, and sophistry in the book. Note how the equivocal statements of bishops are exploited. The article does not come within ten miles of discussing Catholic teaching on the subject of sexual morality.
Oh. I forgot. The article is loaded with outright lies, too.
The biggest whopper is that the Catholic Church had no developed, rational teaching on sodomy until 1976.
This is a trick (or blunder) often made in anti-Catholic polemics. Someone will stumble on a definition from, say, the 11th century, mentioning “transubstantiation,” and will triumphantly proclaim that the Catholic Church invented its teaching on the Eucharist in the 11th century.
This looks like a swell place to pimp my thread.
“If I have read and understood this correctly, it is OK to be Catholic and a Homosexual, both at the same time. True?”
An outisder here, but from the Jewish perspective, it depends if one defines “being gay” as:
(1) having unnatural sexual attraction to the same sex
(2) performing sex acts with those of the same sex.
Situation 1 is unfortunate handicap, but not inconsistent with being a good Jew (or, I presume, a good Roman Catholic), assuming no actual unnatural sex occurs.
Situation 2 IS inconsistent with being a good Jew (and, I presume, a good Roman Catholic).
A trickier issue is an attitude of rebellion -— as in, someone who thinks it’s “OK” to have unnatural attraction to the same sex, but does not act on it, because, well, the Rules are the Rules. A difficult connundrum, but, I’ve never seen it, and,candidly, doubt such a connundrum is possible, as those who reject the Law as silly, tend to act as such.
Having a proclivity toward same sex attraction is not the sin; acting on it is. There are many celibate practicing catholics in good standing. Attraction to the same sex is not a sin.
It is comparable to committing adultery. If you commit the act (even if you lust after a woman in your heart it is the same as committing adultery according to scripture)so it goes with being homosexual. Celibacy is required of homosexuals and single heterosexuals. It is chastity that is violated on both counts. You can be a practicing homosexual or a practicing catholic, but not both; same as being a practicing pro abortion advocate or practicing catholic. They are diametrically opposed, and one cannot be pro both sides of that coin.
They are looking for affirmation, acceptance, and permission to commit sin. It will not be given in the catholic church, and I have a feeling this will become more than crystal clear in the coming months.
(Disclaimer: this is my own thoughts and not reflective of any system of beliefs that I ascribe to.)
In the Garden of Eden, there were three stages of sin that Adam went through.
The first stage was that of giving in to temptation. This is something that all men do, but it easy to be repentant over and forgiveness is easy to find and accept. Adam ate the fruit when offered to him breaking God’s law and finding himself in sin.
The second stage was to avoid facing the sin. This is something that happens to most, if not all, people at some point in their lives. They push back their sin hoping that if they don’t face it, it will just go away. Adam hid from God and didn’t want to talk about it, thus seperating himself from God due to shame as well as sin.
The third stage was to refuse to take responsibility for sin. This is the action that removes us from Grace as a Christian and is based in pride. Adam challenged God by refusing to repent. He blamed others “this woman that you gave to me”, she blamed others “the serpant decieved me”, and though it isn’t in the written words, I can hear Adam blaming God himself “You put that tree there to begin with”. It was because Adam refused to take responsibility for his sin that he stepped beyond Grace and God seperated himself from Adam.
So the first stage of sin is falling to temptation and allowing sin to come between us and God.
The second stage of sin is falling to shame and hiding from God, letting sin and our own shame seperate us from God.
The third stage of sin is falling to pride and refusing to take responsibility for our sin, letting sin, shame and pride lead God to remove us from Grace.
The person who feels a draw to homosexual behavior must resist lest he fall to temptation. At this point, I have no problem with someone who struggles with homosexuality.
But so many people who struggle with this sin have clearly moved onto the avoidance of it, by claiming that it isn’t something they have to deal with it.
And the vast majority of homosexuals have moved into the third stage. They not only avoid talking about their behavior as sin, they are thumbing their nose at God saying that there is no sin there and if there is then the Church needs to change the rules for them.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
It seems pretty simple
1. Homosexuality is gravely depraved because it is contrary to natural law.
2. This disorder is a great trial for many and thus we should treat them with respect compassion and sensitivity.
3. Homosexuals are called to God’s will in their lives by practicing self-mastery of their inclinations and remain chastity.
You can certainly be “gay” and Catholic just as you can be a person who lusts and Catholic or just as you can be an addict and Catholic.
The key is, through God’s graces, self-master these tendencies and strive for Heaven.
This article is not a reliable analysis of Catholic doctrine.
Let's look closer at your own question:
"If I have read and understood this correctly, it is OK to be Catholic and a Homosexual, both at the same time. True?"
If "be homosexual" means "be a person who experiences same-sex attraction," true.
There are good Catholics who experience same-sex attraction--- rarely, occasionally, episodically, persistently, whatever --- but they do not "affirm" their confusions, and they shun sinful behavior. This is undoubtedly true even of some revered teachers and even canonized saints. Gerard Manley Hopkins, maybe? John Henry Newman, maybe?
If "be homosexual" means "willingly cooperates in same-sex fantasy, verbally supports same-sex erotic behavior, or in practice unrepentantly practices such behavior," the answer is no.
I hope I haven't made myself obscure. Unbidden feelings are not sins. Sometimes I feel as if I'd like to drink myself into oblivion. Sometimes I feel I could commit myriad unchaste acts. Sometimes I feel as if I could strangle certain FReepers. These feelings are flaws in my inner self, and if unresisted, they would be morally wrong; but if I do not cooperate with them, neither in thought, word, or deed, they are not sins.
If I love to fantisize about this stuff, defend it verbally, or worse yet act on it: there you go, that's sin.
And as Arthur McGowan says: at that point, get ye to the Confessional! Ask for grace to overcome these sad, bad, crazy or pathetic tendencies.
Everybody has some sinful tendencies. That's a consequence of Original Sin (the sin that happened near the origin of the human race) -- a flaw in our human nature.
Anybody here got flaws? Welcome to the club! That's why we need a Savior!
Hed have plenty of company, no doubt.
Are either one of you Catholic? I had 18 years of Catholic schooling. I have been an active member of 11 different parishes. In that time I have known and been friends with literally a couple of hundred priests. Of these, none were openly gay, and one or two might possibly have been gay. That is about the average for the general male population of this country. But feel free to just keep reinforcing the stereotype, if that's your plan.
This tolerance was abused over several past decades by certain factions within the church in order to enthusiastically recruit openly gay men as seminarians.
Previous regulations against the practice are now coming back, and Tough Tony Bevilacqua, Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia pointed out that straight men sacrifice something good when they enter the Roman priesthood, namely fatherhood and marriage. Celibate queers merely give up something intrinsically evil, which they are supposed to do anyway.
The Romans (Anglicans and Orthodox, too) have a long and uphill battle ahead of them, because the queers are firmly entrenched in their seminaries and no one knows exactly what to do with them. It will be a while before acolytes and choirboys are completely safe from clerical buggery.
Oh, how magnanimous his "forgiveness." What a pantload. What vocabulary would he have preferred, "abomination"?
The Church didn't have to "detail" its position for the previous two centuries, and neither did Jesus Christ himself, because it was clearly understood. Only after the ACLU, the birth control and abortion industries, and the Marxist takeover of the American Medical Association and the universities arose in the late 60s did the Church -- or any other group -- have to spell it out.
Ouch! and Amen!
I'm a practicing Catholic. Practice makes perfect. Or rather, as my clarinet teacher once told 43 years ago, "Perfect practice makes perfect."
However, it is apostasy to celebrate sin.
noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
13501400; ME apostasye
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Abandonment of one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.
[Middle English apostasie, from Old French, from Late Latin apostasia, defection, from Late Greek apostasiā, from Greek apostasis, revolt, from aphistanai, aposta-, to revolt : apo-, apo- + histanai, to stand, place; see stā- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
1. the state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes)
2. the act of abandoning a party for cause
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
"Catholic" is not an ethnicity. If you are not practicing, you are not Catholic.
So, thank you.
Pleased t'meet ya. Love your tagline, too.
What was that link again?
Is this right? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2228855/posts
If you’re declaring yourself “gay”, you can’t be Catholic, pal. Sorry.
Yes, but having met your husband I'm pretty sure you're not a lesbian. ;^)
It is starting to annoy me that I'm seeing liberal journalists talk about "practicing Catholics" all the time these days. You're either Catholic or you are not. The term "non-practicing Catholic" is of course an oxymoron. If you agree with most of what the Church teaches, but you don't practice the religion, that doesn't give you the right to call yourself some sort of a half-assed Catholic. That may be true in other faiths, but Catholicism is an all or none religion.
You can be gay and Catholic. I’m a sinner, and I continue to sin, and I’m a Christian. One sins as good as another at damning you to hell. Nobody’s worthy.
I know there are gays out there that didn’t choose to be gay. I think homosexuality, for lack of a better term, is a disorder. I think you can be a pedophile and be Catholic too, because pedophilia is a disorder, as is necrophilia, bestiality, et. al.
The Church needs to hate the sin but love the sinner. ELCA, the episcopals, and others want to rewrite the Bible and call buggery a ‘gimme’ sin, and let bygones be bygones.
I hope the Church has learned from sweeping homosexuality and pedophilia among clergy under the rug at this point, and is engaging its own on how best to deal with this issue, because its important. Gay people, pedophiles - they deserve salvation too - as much as any other repentant sinner.
The problem, of course, is that the societal impact of their lapses take a horrific toll on the congregation and society at large.
The Catholic Church could, and should, lead on this. They certainly learned a great deal and responded pretty well to the Reformation.
Yep. I had to rant this morning. :) It’s about homofascists behaving like a clown society. Put it in the bloggers section, not because I have a blog anywhere...I don’t...maybe shoulda put it in vanities. *shrug* Maybe should start a blog somewhere and get with the 21st century!
This should be said of Christianity in general.
However, what do you call someone that is a member of your religon, supposedly, that continues to, deliberately, do things that are, expressly, forbidden by your religon?
"Catholic theological pluralism" is within bounds set by the authentic magisterium. Of course the Church has always taught that homosexual activity is wrong and the inclination disordered, but that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, but I suppose any statements reflecting that are "uninformed" by the views of people who do not actually believe what the Church teaches.
Nancy Pelosi. Douglas Kmiec. "Devout" Catholics.
It's the usual MSM axiom: The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic."
Amazing, is it not, that in the morning of that meeting homosexuality was a recognized psychiatric disorder, and in the afternoon it was validated as an alternative lifestyle?